DiscussMormonism.com

I'm always amused to see archtypes and strongly held cultural and political ideologies turned on their heads when something like John McCain's pick for Veep turned out to be a Conservative Christian woman. I lurk occasionally on http://www.exmo-social.com, where I was banned, and the board is generally populated with "open-minded, tolerant, and diverse" Post-Mormons. Most of the posters there think of themselves as Socially Progressive, and have been hardcore Obama supporters. There are a few Conservatives, but they're usually pretty nuanced in their politics, and are shouted down pretty quickly by "open-minded, tolerant, and diverse" types.

Anyway, yesterday Senator McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. This choice really excited me. As I mentioned on the other thread I have two daughters, and would love them to know that in this country, if they put their mind to it, they can accomplish anything. As Governor Palin said, "To any critics who say a woman can't think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I'd just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave."

Now, I don't bring that up because I'm trying to score points with the womenz here. Again, I don't care if they like me or dislike me. Irrelevant. BUT, what I found really astonishing was the reaction by the females and one of the gay males on the other board. The utter misogyny, ageism, and racism that slipped from their "open-minded, tolerant, and diverse" lips was stunning. STUNNING. Here are a few examples of their hypocrisy:

From a gay man, who, I think if I recall correctly, considers himself Latino... I could be wrong on that last bit, though (colorization and bolding mine):

"I think it will be obvious to *most* women why she was chosen. I think he's a stupid, white, old moron and he thinks picking some hot woman will show that he cares. It's pathetic. Does anyone thyink for a minute that she was chosen because she'd be a good PRESIDENT?! Are you damned kidding me?!

McCain needed to choose someone SO ready for office that they'd forget how damned old and frail he is. SO what the “F” does he do? He chooses a completely UNPREPARED, untrained, and innocent ATTRACTIVE woman. Could he BE any more damned STUPID? Seriously.

COULD HE BE ANY MORE damned STUPID?

I'm sure she's a fine person, BUT SHE AIN'T damned READY TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY WHEN McCAIN DROPS DEAD!

Gawd, I thought he was stupid, now I KNOW he's a damned moron!"

"But I think the main reason she's been chosen, if it's her, is because she's a woman."

From various female posters:

"But, I think he is seriously underestimating women, if he thinks they'll elect him though.

Plus, if he really believed that then Condi Rice would be a better choice. Plus, she's Black."

"Personally, I don't really see what she brings to the table - other than that uterus thing."

"Also, I would question the priorities of any parent, male or female, who left a newborn to pursue the White House. This is not a 9-5 job. It is a 24/7 life, especially during the campaign process. Plus, reports indicate that her husband has a full time job, at an oil company."

"Also, I would worry about anyone who would not be concerned about a woman in a high powered, charged position who gets pregnant, given how insane and unpredictable hormones during pregnancy and breast feeding can be."

From a male who is a self-described Native American (he makes it a point to point that out, a lot):

"I'd let her heft my steelhead salmon."

From the kid who banned me:

"Clearly it's just a play for any and all Hillary supporters McCain thinks he can peel away from Obama based on sex alone."

Anyway, this goes on and on for pages on this thread:

http://www.exmo-social.com/showthread.php?t=9914

and this thread:

http://www.exmo-social.com/showthread.php?t=9917

All that being said, the dismissiveness by these supposedly enlightened and progressive types was stunning, sickening, sexist, racist, ageist, and bigoted (anti-religion). It's a funny thing, to leave one form of extremism in Mormonism and take the form of another kind of extremist.

HOWEVER, on the flipside of that coin we have a conundrum for Mormons who teach that it's a woman's place to be, first and foremost, in the home, a mother of Zion, etc... What kind of double-bind does this pick create for the Mormon who wants to vote someone into office that upholds mostly Conservative values, but is... A woman?? What kind of message does it send to their daughters that mom and dad are voting for a woman who works, full-time, holds REAL power over men, but then sends them to a church who encourages them to be submissive to men, and homebound?

The whole thing makes me scratch my head. :)

As for me, I'm very excited about the McCain/Palin ticket. There is a real opportunity for a woman to be the 1st President in the near future. That's something I'll be sure to point out to my daughters. It saddens me, though, to see so many women say so many things that men might use to eliminate Governor Palin from consideration. This is a crazy world...

I think it was a political mistake because, in declaring Palin "ready to be president", McCain has eliminated what may have been his most effective criticism of Obama, which was that lack of experience rendered him not ready to be president.

I also wonder if this choice will alienate some uber socially conservative republicans, who have already had some issues with McCain. Some of these folks don't even believe a woman should be a preacher over a congregation, much less President.

by the way, I don't think there's inherent sexism in stating the obvious - given Palin's lack of experience, and given the fact that McCain has already been making serious overtures to the disaffected Hillary supporters, it is quite likely that hoping to catch those disaffected Hillary supporter played a significant role in his decision.

I also hate the idea of having yet another leader who encourages the current anti-scientific bent of this country, as demonstrated in her support of teaching creationism in school, as a theory just as legitimate as evolution. Although this may seem a minor issue to some, it's a serious issue to me. It seems to me our future economic welfare partly depends on improving our science education, which will widen the field for gifted individuals to invent a new, world-changing technology.

Aside from that, I think the fact that Hillary was a serious contender and now Palin is a contender for VP is very exciting, and probably means we'll see a female President in our lifetimes.

The Obama campaign has drawn the wrong conclusion from the Swiftvets. The mainstream media spin is that the Swiftvets were liars. The fact is that they caught Kerry in a big whopper about Christmas in Cambodia

As for Kerry, I listened respectfully to the majority of his boatmates who said that he acted heroically and to the majority of the larger squadron who said that he did not. They were talking about events that happened long ago, in sudden violence, and I found myself unable to say those on either side were lying.

But I also saw Kerry's campaign abandon his claim -- that he said on the Senate floor in 1986 was "seared, seared" in his memory -- that he was in Cambodia at Christmastime 1968. And I never heard him repudiate his 1971 Senate Foreign Relations testimony -- featured in the ads -- that our soldiers committed "crimes ... on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2008/08/30/outrageous_vulnerabilities

The Obama campaign is now trying to silence critics. A friend of mine has hosted an excellent radio show, Extension 720, on WGN in Chicago for 35 years. Last Wednesday he had Stanley Kurtz on his show to discuss Obama's connections with Bill Ayres and other radicals.

http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=co ... Itemid=240

Obama's campaign was invited to have a representative participate. They declined. They then sent out an e-mail telling supporters to contact WGN and tell management that they should not allow Kurtz on the show.

As I arrived at the downtown Chicago studios a few hours before show time, the phones began ringing off the hook with irate callers demanding Kurtz be axed from the program. It didn't take long to discover that the Obama campaign—which had declined invitations to join the show for its duration to offer rebuttals to Kurtz's points—had sent an "Obama Action Wire" e-mail to its supporters, encouraging them to deluge the station with complaints.

Why? Because, naturally, Kurtz is a "right-wing hatchet man," a "smear merchant" and a "slimy character assassin" who is perpetrating one of the "most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack."

Evidently, much of Obama nation is composed of obedient and persistent sheep. They jammed all five studio lines for nearly the entire show while firing off dozens of angry emails. Many vowed to kick their grievances up the food chain to station management. After 90 minutes of alleged smear peddling, Milt Rosenberg (a well-respected host whose long-form interview show has aired in Chicago for decades) opened the phone lines, and blind ignorance soon began to crackle across the AM airwaves. The overwhelming message was clear: The interview must be put to an end immediately, and the station management should prevent similar discussions from taking place.

One female caller, when pressed about what precisely she objected to, simply replied, "We just want it to stop!" Another angry caller was asked what "lies" Kurtz had told in any of his reporting on Barack Obama. The thoughtful response? "Everything he said is dishonest." The same caller later refused to get into "specifics." Another gentleman called Kurtz "the most un-American person" he'd ever heard. Several of the callers did not even know Stanley's name, most had obviously never read a sentence of his meticulous research, and more than simply read verbatim from the Obama talking points.

As Rosenberg repeatedly pointed out that Team Obama had been offered the opportunity to take part in the conversation, the agitated masses adapted their argument to suggest it was outrageous to request an interview from the Obama campaign in the thick of the DNC. Delivering the line of the night, Rosenberg countered, "The Obama national headquarters is just down the street from here. They obviously have the time to send out these angry emails, but they can't walk a few blocks to our studios?"

Throughout the open-line segments, Rosenberg and Kurtz wore incredulous expressions. The hostile callers were so bereft of any legitimate argument, there was little to do but sit back and marvel at what was going on.

The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions. Coupled with the Obama campaign's recent attempts to sic the DOJ on the creators of a truthful political advertisement —which also happened to feature Obama's relationship with an unrepentant terrorist— last night's call to action represents an emerging pattern. Any criticism of Obama's unknown past is to be immediately denounced as a "smear," and the messenger is to be shut down at all costs.

Stanley Kurtz is poring through mounds of documents (access to which was initially blocked) in a public university's library that (a) establish a deeper link between a major party presidential nominee and a man who is proud of bombing US government buildings, and (b) shed light on said candidate's brief, unexplored executive experience. It's entirely understandable why the Obama campaign would prefer that the files remain out of the public eye until at least November 5, but Kurtz's careful research is completely within the bounds of reasonable inquiry. One might even argue it's vital that a man who may be the next leader of the free world be thoroughly vetted.

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q ... dmMjVhMzE=
The Obama campaign is acting like people who have something to hide. A reliable source has told me that there are more scandals which have not yet been covered from Obama’s time in Springfield as a state senator.

There are many who have lots of experience but who have accomplished vitually nothing in their careers (i.e. Joe Biden, Hillary). And there are those who have little experience but succeed in whatever it is they try to accomplish (i.e. Romney, Pail). If you were hiring a manager to run your family business, would you pick a mediocre candidate who can boast of many years experience, or would you hire someone with a track record of success? Palin has that track record, and she made a name for herself even though she is stuck up in rural Alaska.

Obama is the worst of the lot, because he has little experience and zero accomplishments. Many people like Oprah are voting for him primarily because he is black and he and his lecture style give them glimpses of MLK. But the guy is a moron who lacks basic common sense ( he said inflating our tires we would save us as much on gas as we would by drilling!). He isn't as dumb as Bush, but that isn't much to grab about. He has been a senator for only three years, two of which he has spent campaigning for President. He is trying to slide into the white house based on his skin color.

Palin is far more qualified to be President than Obama because she has more executive experience, and McCain picked her because he is keeping with his "Maverick" identity. He picked her because she is more like him. Neither vote strictly along party lines because that is what's expected of them. And they both have made a name for themselves as reformers. They both want to change Washington. McCain genuinely thinks that someone like Palin is what's needed.

My Mormon mother was upset and spouted some old barefoot and pregnant Mormon thought out. But upon further conversation I finally got out of her that she wanted Romney.

I don't know if it was the best pick. I like it. I would have liked Condie Rice in a heart beat. I like that an outsider and a common person is given a chance. I think McCain has given Obama a one up as an agent of change.

McCain was not my first choice but he had my vote no matter who he picked. I am not a fan of liberal politics and especially Obama/Hilary liberal politics. I also find them so "tolerant" that they are the first to discriminate.

I also hate the idea of having yet another leader who encourages the current anti-scientific bent of this country, as demonstrated in her support of teaching creationism in school, as a theory just as legitimate as evolution.

This is bunk and you know it. She is not "anti-scientific" and neither is the proposal of creationsm as a theory. It is one thing to be unscientific and another to be anti-science. Do you really think everything printed in science textbooks is legitimately classified as science. What if I told you some textbooks mention the wild hypothetical that there are millions of universes in existence? Would you call that anti-science? There is nothing "scientific" about it, but the idea isn't being forwarded by theists, so it would be acceptable. Because you know, only religious people have agendas, right?

This is bunk and you know it. She is not "anti-scientific" and neither is the proposal of creationsm as a theory. It is one thing to be unscientific and another to be anti-science. Do you really think everything printed in science textbooks is legitimately classified as science. What if I told you some textbooks mention the wild hypothetical that there are millions of universes in existence? Would you call that anti-science? There is nothing "scientific" about it, but the idea isn't being forwarded by theists, so it would be acceptable. Because you know, only religious people have agendas, right?

It's not bunk at all, and you know it. (tee hee)

It's anti-scientific to insist that a theory with no scientific support - creationism - qualifies to be taught as a theory just as legitimate as evolution, which has an embarrassment of riches as far as scientific support.


by the way, of course I could have predicted that Palin supporters will now discount "experience" in favor of "accomplishments", but this opens the door for Obama supporters to put forth his accomplishments in the same manner. Each one has had successful careers (which distinguishes them from Bush, at least). The value one puts on those respective careers is pretty dependent upon personal world-views. That means that the "no experience" argument is now dead. That's fine by me, by the way, because I think electing McCain opens the door to preemptive military action in other parts of the world, further draining our economy, the military, and our global relationships, just at a time when we need all of those things for other needs that aren't going to disappear anytime soon.

It's anti-scientific to insist that a theory with no scientific support - creationism - qualifies to be taught as a theory just as legitimate as evolution, which has an embarrassment of riches as far as scientific suppor

Not only is that stupid logic, you just proved you're talking in ignorance, since Palin has never supported such a thing. All she supported was that it be discussed in class, not that it be published alongside evolution in the textbooks. Of course, how can you expect not to discuss it when students start asking questions about it. Most people are religious you know.

"While running for Governor of Alaska she was asked about the teaching of creationism in public school science classes. Palin answered that she thought it was important to teach both sides of the debate in the schools, although she clarified the next day that she meant that open debate between the two ideas should not be prohibited if it came up in discussion, but that creationism did not need to be part of the curriculum. She also added that she would not appoint State Board of Education members based on their opinions on evolution or creationism. Since her election she has appointed three of the seven Board members, who serve five-year terms: Patrick Shier, Phillip Schneider, and Geraldine Benshoof. None of these appointments attracted criticism on this issue." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

It helps to actually learn something about a candidate before attacking her. She also smoked pot, which should be enough to win the votes of many here, including the dude.

by the way, of course I could have predicted that Palin supporters will now discount "experience" in favor of "accomplishments"

Nobody is "discounting" experience. But if you support Obama then you're being the hypocrite for criticizing her for a lack of esxperience since she has more executive experience than Obama and Biden put together.

but this opens the door for Obama supporters to put forth his accomplishments in the same manner.

LIKE WHAT???? Democratic strategists have been asked specifically what Obama has accomplishedm in his political career and all they can come up with are a list of liberal issues he supports. That's it.

The value one puts on those respective careers is pretty dependent upon personal world-views. That means that the "no experience" argument is now dead.

It was never the argument, you're tearing down another strawman.

That's fine by me, by the way, because I think electing McCain opens the door to preemptive military action in other parts of the world, further draining our economy, the military, and our global relationships, just at a time when we need all of those things for other needs that aren't going to disappear anytime soon.

What the hell? There is no evidence for this whatsoever. If supporting the war in Iraq is all the evidence you've got, then Biden and Hillary are just as likely to "open the door to preemptive military action." The problem with the Iraq "war" has everything to do with the way it was handled. You can't blame McCain for that. The morons Bush and Rumsfeld were in charge and they created a huge cluster “F” if there ever was one. Had the surge been implmented shortly after the invasion, I suspect its success would have been similar to what it is now.

by the way, of course I could have predicted that Palin supporters will now discount "experience" in favor of "accomplishments", but this opens the door for Obama supporters to put forth his accomplishments in the same manner. Each one has had successful careers (which distinguishes them from Bush, at least).

Like Bush or not he was Governor of one of the largest states for six years before he was elected. He was and is light years ahead of Obama far as executive leadership. Also, even though he has failed in the oil business at least he had attempted to work in the business world. Obama is a lawyer with community activism and his main resume highlight before entering the political arena

That said I personally am excited that Obama, who does not have a political resume a milliong miles long, is running. Same for Palin now. It refreshes me to see some new blood and faces on the scene. I don't know if I want a life time political hound in office any more. I am a bit jazzed about this woman governor who in her beat a rotten incumbent governor in a primary race, had purged out corruption in her state in a short two years and has vetoed over 300 special interest bills. She seems to be her own woman. And I am excited that it is a woman. I think she was pegged as an up and comer.

That said I am still undecided on my vote. Depends the day of the week. I am not a McCain fan. There is some I like about him and much I do not. Maybe having Sarah Palin on the ticket may tilt me. She could be set up as VP to run for president is four years. Obama-he excites me but there policy wise there is about 40% of what he espouses that I agree with. So that is tough.

I always felt like we needed a woman in office, but Hillary always annoyed me. Palin is a hell of alot more presentable than Hillary. It isn't just the looks, but the fact that Hillary is so damn fake. I think more people, especially women, will relate to Pailn, and not Hillary. The first time I saw Hillary smile was after she started running for President, probably because her campaign advisors called for it. For years she refused to be interviewed and questioned on what it is she stood for as a Senator. We were just supposed to take it all for granted I guess. And then after dodging Bill O'Reilley for years, she finally gets on the show and shows just how fake she can be.

Both are strong women, but I think Palin has proved she is a winner not a whiner.